James
Arminius (Jacob Harmenszoon) is undoubtedly the most famous theologian
ever produced by the Dutch Reformed Church. His fame is a great irony since
the Dutch Reformed Church historically was a bastion of strict Calvinism
and Arminius has given his name to a movement very much in opposition to
historic Calvinism. Who was this Arminius? What did he teach? Are the differences
between Calvinism and Arminianism important today?

WHO WAS
ARMINIUS?

Arminius
was born in 1559 in Oudewater - a small city in the province of Holland.
Holland was one of seventeen prosperous provinces then known as the Netherlands
or the Low Countries, which today are divided into the Netherlands, Belgium
and part of northern France. In 1559 His Most Catholic Majesty Philip II
was the king of Spain and Sovereign of the Netherlands.

Despite
Philip's ardent Roman Catholicism and persecuting zeal, Reformation movements
had been strong in the Low Countries for decades. In the late 1540s Calvinism
emerged as an attractive, popular religion in the Netherlands, especially
in the southern provinces. In 1559 Guido de Bres wrote the first edition
of the Belgic Confession, which clearly summarized the Calvinistic faith
and set it off from Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism. The Belgic Confession
became one of the basic doctrinal standards of Dutch Calvinism.

The decade
of the 1560s saw dramatic developments in the Netherlands. The Belgic Confession
was published. A storm of iconoclasm broke out, destroying many images
in Roman Catholic churches throughout the provinces. Guido de Bres was
martyred for the faith. Philip II increasingly alienated the nobility and
the people with his fiscal and religious policies. Revolts broke out against
royal authority.

By the
early 1570s civil war had begun in earnest against Spain. History knows
this revolt as the Eighty Years War, which was not settled until 1648.
Growing up in the midst of civil war in state and church, Arminius knew
the bitterness of war. In 1575 his mother and other members of his family
died at the hands of Spanish troops in a massacre at Oudewater.

In October
of 1575 Arminius entered the newly founded University of Leiden. He was
the 12th student to enroll in the school that honored the heroic resistance
of Leiden to Spanish siege in 1574. He was a talented student and like
many students of his day continued his education at other schools. From
1581 to 1586 he studied in Geneva and Basle.

While
in Geneva Arminius seemed to have some trouble with Theodore Beza, Calvin's
staunch successor. The evidence suggests not theological, but philosophical,
differences. Indeed there is very little evidence as to exactly what Arminius'
theology was in his student years. What is clear is that when Arminius
was ordered to return to the Netherlands in 1586 to take up pastoral responsibilities
in Amsterdam, he was given a very good letter of recommendation from Beza
to the Dutch Reformed Church.

Before
returning to Amsterdam, Arminius took a trip into Italy to see the sights.
This trip was later used by some Calvinists to accuse Arminius of having
Roman Catholic sympathies. But such charges were clearly untrue and unfair.

Once back
in Amsterdam he became one of several pastors there and in 1590 he married
Lijsbet Reael, a daughter of one of Holland's most influential men. Arminius
became allied to a regent family and his convictions on the relation of
church and state were the same as that of most regents. Indeed, he was
appointed in 1591 to a commission to draw up a church order in which the
church was given a position clearly subordinate to and dependent on the
state. This position (usually called Erastianism) was not held by most
clergy in the Dutch Reformed Church. Most followed Calvin's conviction
that the church must have a measure of independence from the state, especially
in matters of church discipline.

The issue
of discipline was a controversial one in the Netherlands. The Belgic Confession
had stated that discipline was one of the marks of the true church and
Calvinists strongly believed that the church ought to have the right especially
to regulate the teaching of its ministers. But in the Netherlands the government
had at times protected ministers who were targets of church discipline.
Arminius' Erastianism distinguished him from most of his ministerial colleagues.

Most of
the years of Arminius' pastorate (1587-1603) in Amsterdam were peaceful.
But there were some controversies. Arminius preached through the book of
Romans and some of his sermons did evoke opposition. In 1591 he preached
on Romans 7:14 and following. The standard Calvinist interpretation argued
that Paul in these verses is speaking as a regenerate Christian. Romans
7 then presents the Christian's continuing struggle resisting sin in his
life. By contrast, Arminius taught that Paul is remembering his previous,
unregenerate state. For Arminius the struggle against sin in Romans 7 is
a struggle before conversion. The Calvinists objected sharply to this interpretation,
asking how the unregenerate can delight in the law in the inner man (Rom.
7:22). In 1593 Arminius preached on Romans 9 and his sermons on predestination
seemed inadequate to many Dutch Calvinists.

Still
these controversies passed. When two vacancies in the theological faculty
at the University of Leiden had to be filled in 1603, people of influence
in the government thought Arminius ought to be appointed, but strict Calvinists
objected, unsettled by too many questions about Arminius' orthodoxy. The
disagreement was resolved when both sides agreed to allow the one remaining
member of the faculty, Franciscus Gomarus, to interview and evaluate Arminius
for this position. Gomarus was a strict Calvinist of undoubted orthodoxy.
After the interview Gomarus declared himself satisfied with Arminius and
that latter was installed as a professor at Leiden.

The reason
Gomarus was satisfied with Arminius is unclear. It is as unclear as the
reason that Beza recommended him or that his orthodox colleagues in Amsterdam
got along with him as well as they did. Perhaps Gomarus failed to ask the
right questions or Arminius was not candid with his answers. Another possibility
is that Arminius' theology changed significantly after the interview, but
it is difficult to speculate.

Within
a few years, however, suspicions began to arise about Arminius. People
criticized the books he assigned students. Others worried about his private
sessions with students. Gomarus became convinced that Arminius was not
orthodox on the doctrine of predestination. These suspicions led Arminius'
classes to try to examine Arminius' doctrine, but the trustees of the university
would not permit that. Some said the issues surrounding Arminius' teaching
could only be resolved at a national synod. But the government was unwilling
to allow a national synod to meet.

Tensions
within the church finally led to a government investigation in 1608. In
the course of that investigation, Arminius wrote his "Declaration of Sentiments,"
probably the best summary of his beliefs. Arminius had been insisting that
he was only trying to protect the church from the extremes of Calvinism,
especially supralapsarianism. Gomarus had replied that the issue was not
peripheral matters such as supralapsarianism, but rather the Reformation
doctrine of justification by faith. With no satisfactory resolution to
the matter, Arminius became ill and died in 1609, a minister in good standing
in the Dutch Reformed Church.

WHAT DID
ARMINIUS TEACH?

Arminius
is best known theologically for his rejection of the Calvinist doctrine
of predestination. In this definition Arminius states his belief that faith
is the cause of election: "It is an eternal and gracious decree of God
in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to
endow them with eternal life, but to condemn unbelievers, and impenitent
persons." But such a position reverses the biblical pattern (e.g., Romans
8:30 and Acts 13:48) where election is clearly the cause of belief. For
orthodox Calvinists faith is a gift of God. If election - God's purpose
to give faith according to His sovereign will - does not precede faith,
then faith is not truly a gift.

Arminius
expanded his basic definition of predestination in four theses. First,
God decreed absolutely that Christ is the Savior who will "destroy sin",
"obtain salvation", and "communicate it by his own virtue." Second, God
decreed absolutely to save "those who repent and believe, and, in Christ,
and for His sake and through Him to effect salvation of such penitents
and believers as persevered to the end." Third, God decreed "to administer
in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for
repentance and faith" according to divine wisdom and justice. Fourth, God
decreed "to save and damn particular persons" based on the foreknowledge
of God, by which He knew from all eternity those individuals who would,
through his preventing [i.e., prevenient] grace, believe, and through his
subsequent grace would persevere."

In his
exposition of predestination Arminius sought to have a theology of grace
and to avoid all Pelagianism. He stated that "that teacher obtains my highest
approbation who ascribes as much as possible to divine grace, provided
he so pleads the cause of grace, as not to inflict an injury on the justice
of God, and not to take away the free will of that which is evil." Arminius
wanted a theology of grace that made God seem fair in all his dealings
with and also wanted to leave room for people to reject grace. Like many
others Arminius thought this kind of theology would make it easier to preach
the Gospel and emphasize human responsibility. But Arminius ultimately
failed to have a true theology of grace. For Arminius grace is essential
and grace is necessary, but God's grace is not absolutely efficacious.
Man's response to grace remains the final, decisive factor in salvation.
Jesus is no longer the actual Savior of His people. He becomes the one
who makes salvation possible. Man's contribution, however sincerely Arminius
tried to limit it, became central for salvation.

Arminius
also gave faith a different place in his system from the role that faith
had occupied in earlier Reformed theology. Arminius taught that faith itself
was imputed to the sinner for righteousness, whereas the earlier teaching
had stressed that it was the object of faith, namely Christ and His righteousness,
that was imputed to the sinner. This shift is important because again it
shifts the primary focus of salvation from God's work in Christ to man's
faith. Arminius can even speak of faith being the one work required of
man in the New Covenant. This kind of teaching led to Gomarus' charge that
Arminius was undermining the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith.
Arminius' teaching turns faith from an instrument that rests on the work
of Christ to a work of man, and tends to change faith from that which receives
the righteousness of Christ to that which is righteousness itself.

After
the death of Arminius controversy continued in the Netherlands about the
teachings of Arminianism. Forty-two ministers in 1610 signed a petition
or Remonstrance to the government asking for protection for their Arminian
views. The heart of this Remonstrance summarized their theology in five
points: conditional election, universal atonement, total depravity, sufficient
but resistible grace and uncertainty about the perseverance of the saints.
The Calvinists answered with a Contra-Remonstrance in 1611. It is surely
ironic that through the centuries there has been so much talk of the "five
points of Calvinism" when in fact Calvinists did not originate a discussion
of five points. Indeed Calvinism has never been summarized in five points.
Calvinism has only offered five responses to the five errors of Arminianism.

Controversy
raged in the Netherlands over Arminianism, even threatening civil war.
Finally in 1618, after a change of leadership in the government, a national
synod was held at Dordrecht - the Synod of Dort - to judge the Arminian
theology. By the time the Synod of Dort met, the issues raised by the Arminians
were being widely discussed in the Reformed community throughout Europe.
Reformed Christians from Great Britain, France, Switzerland and Germany
expressed great concern for the dangers posed by the Arminian theology.

William
Ames, one of the great English Puritans, wrote that Arminianism "is not
properly a heresy but a dangerous error in the faith tending to heresy...a
Pelagian heresy, because it denies the effectual operation of internal
grace to be necessary for the effecting of conversion and faith." In this
evaluation Ames rightly saw the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians
as related to the conflict between Augustine - the champion of grace -
and Pelagius - who insisted that man's will was so free that it was possible
for him to be saved solely through his own natural abilities.

The Synod
of Dort had delegates not only from the Netherlands but also from throughout
Europe, the only truly international Reformed synod. The Synod rejected
the teaching of the Arminians and in clear and helpful terms presented
the orthodox Calvinist position in the Canons of Dort. Unanimously approved
by the Synod, they were hailed throughout the Reformed churches of Europe
as an excellent defense of the faith

The Canons
of Dort responded to the five errors of Arminianism and expressed the Calvinist
alternative to those errors: 1) God freely and sovereignly determined to
save some lost sinners through the righteousness of Christ and to give
to His elect the gift of faith; 2) God sent His Son to die as the substitute
for His elect and Christ's death will certainly result in the salvation
of His own; 3) Man is so utterly lost in sin that without the regenerating
grace of God, man cannot desire salvation, repent, believe or do anything
truly pleasing to God; 4) God's grace saves the elect sinner irresistibly
since only irresistible grace can overcome man's rebellion; 5) God in mercy
preserves the gift of faith in His elect to ensure that the good work He
began in them will certainly come to completion in their salvation.

DO THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARMINIANS AND CALVINISTS MATTER TODAY?

Many argue
that the differences between Calvinists and Arminians no longer matter.
After all, some argue, Arminius lived 400 years ago. Are his views still
important and influential? The answer to that question must be a resounding
yes. Armininism is very influential in evangelical and Pentecostal circles
today. Indeed Arminianism today usually goes much further in emphasizing
free will than Arminius did or would ever have approved of doing.

Some downplay
the differences between Arminians and Calvinists out of an activism that
is rather indifferent to theology. Such activists often argue that, with
so much to do for Christ in the world and with so much opposition to Christianity
in general, theological differences must be minimized.

It is
certainly true that the theological differences between Calvinists and
Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are
evangelical Christians. But the differences between Calvinists and Arminians
are important precisely for the work that all want to do for Christ. What
is the work that needs to be done and how will it be done? The answers
to those questions depend very much on whether man has a free will or not.
Does one seek to entertain and move the emotions and will of men whose
salvation is ultimately in their own hands? Or does one present the claims
of God as clearly as possible while recognizing that ultimately fruit comes
only from the Holy Spirit? Those kinds of concerns will affect the ways
in which Christians worship and witness and serve and live.

Some argue
that the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are unimportant
because the theological terms of the controversy were wrong or are now
outmoded. They argue that just as progress has been made in so many fields,
so theological progress has transcended the old controversies. This claim
may be an attractive one until it is examined closely. On close examination
such a claim proves to be false. Either salvation is entirely the work
of God or it is partially the work of man. There is no way to "transcend"
this reality. On close examination those efforts to transcend Calvinism
are at best other forms of Arminianism.

Some try
to split the difference between Armininism and Calvinism. They say something
like, "I want to be 75% Calvinist and 25% Arminian." If they mean that
literally, then they are 100% Arminian since giving any determinative place
to human will is Arminian. Usually they mean that they want to stress the
grace of God and human responsibility. If that is what they mean, then
they can be 100% Calvinist for Calvinism does teach both that God's grace
is entirely the cause of salvation and that man is responsible before God
to hear and heed the call to repentance and faith.

Today
some Calvinists are hesitant to stress their distinctives because they
feel that they are such a small minority within Christendom. They must
remember that in the providence of God, Calvinism has gone through varying
periods. In some it has flourished and in some it has declined. God does
not call His people to be successful; He calls them to be faithful.

Calvinists
should still confidently teach the sovereign grace of God as it was summarized
in the Canons of Dort. They should do so because, according to this author
and the witness of Reformed Christians in church history, Calvinism is
both biblical and helpful. It is helpful because in a world that is often
foolishly optimistic and man-centered, Calvinism teaches the seriousness
of sin and the glories of the redemptive work of Christ for sinners. In
the face of so much religious shallowness, the profundity of Calvinism
is needed. Shallow religion produces shallow Christian living. The depths
of God's grace should lead Christians to live gratefully, humbly, joyfully
and carefully before God. Today the church of Jesus Christ does not need
less Calvinism. Rather it needs to recover a forceful and faithful commitment
to the God-centered biblical message.

Dr. W.
Robert Godfrey, a member of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals,
is president and professor of church history atWestminster Theological
Seminary in California. Educated at Stanford University and Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary, Dr. Godfrey is the editor of Through Christ's
Word (Presbyterian and Reformed) and the co-editor of Theonomy:
A Reformed Critique (Zondervan).